Historia de la extracción de sal

The second scenario shows how a wide-area persistent surveillance (WAPS) drone might be used by law enforcement agencies to identify, track, and apprehend individuals suspected of committing an act of terror at the Olympic Games.

In 2030, law enforcement agencies use a large wide-area persistent surveillance drone to provide security against the threat of terrorism at the Olympic Games. It covertly flies over the Olympic village and sports venues, continuously recording detailed wide-area footage of these and surrounding areas and automatically tracking and analyzing the movement of the people within them. Inhabitants and visitors of the host city are informed that drones are being used for security purposes. At day 12 of the Olympics, a large bomb explodes just outside the Olympic Stadium, killing 15 people and wounding many more. Law

enforcement agents use the drone footage to identify and locate the terrorists. Two suspects are seen placing the bomb and thanks to automated movement tracking they are apprehended within hours. The automated tracking software had tracked them to a house two kilometers from the Olympic Stadium. It later emerged the suspects had planned another attack for the very next day…

Figure 15: Providing security for an important public event.

Let us now apply Nissenbaum’s decision heuristic to evaluate the practice described in this application scenario.

Steps 1–6: Prima facie evaluation of contextual integrity

This scenario has important similarities to the previous scenario. A WAPS drone is used in public airspace and captures top-down motion imagery of large numbers of people for an extended period of time. It relays the imagery to law enforcement personnel on the ground, who monitor and record the data, and analyze it using tracking algorithms. The imagery and tracking data make many people identifiable, regardless of whether they are potential suspects, and have the potential to reveal all sorts of sensitive information about them. There are essentially three different social contexts in this scenario: a large-scale public event context, which can further be specified as the Olympic Games context, and the by now familiar contexts of everyday life inoutdoor public space and everyday life in outdoor private space. The transmission principles now include “notice” since the public is informed about the drone’s presence.

The new practice is to be compared with the standard use of CCTV cameras and (undercover) patrolling law enforcement agents in large-scale public events. Comparing the practice with these entrenched practices, we can conclude that the new practice violates informational norms in all three contexts. In the context of the Olympic Games, and more so in the context of outdoor public space, the informational norms are violated through changes in the types of information transmitted, and changes in the transmission principles: the practice increases the amount of personal data collected of people in public, and it increases the covertness of observation—even if people are informed of the drone’s presence. Finally, in the context of outdoor private space, the same violations are occurring at an even stronger level. All of this leads to a prima facie judgment that contextual integrity has been violated.

Steps 7–10: Final normative assessment

Let us now assess the ethical admissibility of the new practice. To begin, the potential positive and negative impacts on ethical values are similar to those listed in the previous scenario evaluation. Compared with surveillance using only CCTV cameras and patrolling police officers, surveillance that includes WAPS drones with automated tracking software is likely to be more cost-efficient, and more efficacious in terms of promoting security, public order and justice. As previously explained, the almost endless amounts of data the WAPS drone produces contain a wealth of information on people’s behaviors, movements, and connections. When this data is effectively and efficiently analyzed it may prove quite helpful in reducing (but not eliminating) the probability and impact of terror attacks, including the time and effort needed to apprehend suspects. In terms of potential negative impacts, the new practice has a diminishing effect on data subjects’ freedom, autonomy and social relationships, and on democracy, mainly due to the “chilling effect” it induces; and the practice enhances the risks of information-based harms, such as identity mistakes, voyeurism and stalking. These negative impacts are mitigated, however, by the fact that people are informed of the drone surveillance, and by the fact that this surveillance only lasts for the duration of the event.

Let us now consider the goals, values and ends of the contexts in question and evaluate whether these are fair. The essential purpose of the Olympic Games is to make the world come together in celebration of excellence in sport. In addition, the Olympics allow a host city (and host country) to showcase itself to the world, which may be the host city’s prime motive for hosting the event. Given the high-profile nature of the event and a recent history of terror attacks (in Munich, 1972; and in Atlanta, 1996), public security and public order are considered to be of the utmost importance. The goals and values of everyday life in outdoor public space and outdoor private space have been described in the previous scenario; important in these two contexts, respectively, are the values of freedom, autonomy, security, efficiency, equality, sociality, and democracy, and the values of freedom and autonomy. In my view, the goals and values of all of these contexts are fair.

We may now consider the meaning or significance of the impacts in light of the contextual goals and values, and balance them so as to arrive at a verdict on the ethical admissibility of the practice. On the whole, I believe the goals and values of the Olympic Games context are better served by the new practice than the existing practices because of the new practice’s strengthening effect on security and the relative lack of harm to this context’s other goals and values. However, the new practice fares worse than the existing practices in terms of realizing the goals and values of everyday life in outdoor public space and outdoor private space. Again, balancing the impacts is complicated by the fact that there are different contexts that favor different outcomes. The context of the Olympic Games competes with the contexts of everyday life in outdoor public space and outdoor private space. In my view, the context of the Olympic Games is dominant while the event is taking place, and the incremental benefit to security and justice resulting from the new practice, in terms of the probability and impact of terror attacks, outweighs any temporary incremental harm to values such as autonomy, freedom, sociality, and democracy. This leads me to conclude that the practice of using a WAPS drone as described in this scenario is ethically justified.